Posted on 05/24/2013 9:24:30 AM PDT by kwikrnu
Embody claimed in court the Second Amendment gave him a right to carry firearms.
The Appeals Court disagreed, ruling that the right to bear arms is not unrestricted.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
They need to get out their dictionaries and look up the meaning of the word INFRINGED...............
So “...Shall not be infringed” doesn’t apply in Tennessee.
Will they be processing permit applications like the IRS handled Tax Exempt Applications ?
Hmmm...doesn’t Heller say otherwise?
Somehow I doubt the people of Tennessee will let it stand.
Naturally. We know the government in all levels share selected information. Privacy concerning the public is an illusion and a ruse. .
Not precisely.
The revocation came after Embody was detained by Belle Meade police in 2010 while walking with a .44 caliber black powder revolver in his hand. He was detained in 2009 while walking in Radnor Lake State Park with an AK-47-style pistol.
(emphasis added)
I’d rather be judged by Twelve than carried by Six.
“Shall Not Be Infringed” means only one thing.
There is not a single word in the 2nd Amendment which restricts the right to bear arms. In fact it goes further than other Amendments to state “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
What is the penalty for government officials at any level or any branch who violate the Constitution? NOTHING!
Unless they are, at bare minimum, given life sentences for violating our rights this will never stop. Why life? 1 day for each American who’s rights were violated would not seem to violate Cruel and Unusual.
That is the minimum, while I prefer the Thomas Jefferson approach, I know there are not enough backbones remaining in current society to garner the will and determination we were so fortunate to have in our Founders. We are now the land of fairies.
Well...I guess after the reset, when we write the new constitution, we’ll just have to say the right to own and carry weapons is “unrestricted”.
‘Cuz “shall not be infringed” is just too dang vague.
[[The Appeals Court disagreed, ruling that the right to bear arms is not unrestricted.]]
Did the court poinjt to the words that make that claim?
The Tennessee state Constitution specifically says that the legislature has the power by law “to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.”
His carry permit was taken away because he was acting like an ass. If on the other hand, he had been carrying openly in a holster, he would probably never been charged.
Now pistols are AK-47s? Who knew??!!
The Appeals Court disagreed, ruling that the right to bear arms is not unrestricted.
Please, Appeals Court, show us the restrictive clause in the second amendment.
Silly rabbit, fedzilla doesn’t deem you having to get the state’s permission to carry a concealed weapon as infringinng on your inalienable right to bear arms. ... Hmmm, ya think they consider the state to be God’s partner?
Yes, there is such a thing. Take the folding stock off a short-barreled AK-47 and you have a pistol (if it is properly registered as a pistol).
There are such things as AR and AK sized pistols.
I simply carried the navy pistol as required by Belle Meade ordinance and the law. There is a reason why I was not arrested. You should read up on TN history before you type.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.